SM-102 is a lipid that you can order online for laboratory use. It is referred to as an ‘ionizable amino lipid’.
https://www.caymanchem.com/product/33474/sm-102
The first thing that any good ‘chemist’ does when ordering a new ‘chemical’ is to check out the (Material) Safety Data Sheet ((M)SDS) safety sheet.12 See the MSDS for SM-102. I will list 3 pages here as per Cayman’s SM-102 product listed online.
https://cdn.caymanchem.com/cdn/msds/33474m.pdf
The symbols listed above are quite self-explanatory but I will explain them anyway. This lipid is listed as having the following hazards: flammable in liquid and vapor form, acute toxicity if swallowed or inhaled, hazardous to health, and mutagenic (causes cancer). It is listed as being 90% ethanol and 10% SM-102 and known to cause anemia, cough, CNS depression, drowsiness, headache, heart damage, lassitude (weakness, exhaustion), liver damage, narcosis, reproductive effects and teratogenic effects as per the First-Aid Measures and treatment from potential exposure.
The little pictogram with the blue red and yellow set of diamonds at the bottom of the second page means that this product can cause temporary incapacitation or residual injury and will burn (flashpoint greater than room temperature) and is stable. Below are the analogous pictograms for gasoline and diesel. SM-102 is more dangerous from a health (blue) point of view than both gas and diesel.
The third page reinforces what page 2 primarily shows which are the protective conditions/measures one must apply or use when handling SM-1023. I always made sure I followed these recommendations to the letter.
Now everyone should know that this ‘story’ has been ‘fact-checked’ by ‘FactCheck.org’ and their claim is that, quote:
Cayman Chemical offers a version of SM-102 for research purposes that is packaged in chloroform, a potentially toxic chemical. So the safety data sheet from Cayman Chemical for that product includes warnings related to chloroform — not SM-102.
The product can be suspended in chloroform, which is highly toxic. Not potentially toxic. It can also be suspended in ethanol as shown in the SDS below. But the SDS in general refers to the product as a whole - not simply what the chemical is suspended in.
Reading MSDS sheets is a vital part of doing safe work in the laboratory environment. It’s the very first thing I always did. I have actually been made fun of for being ‘too cautious’ for being very stringent about reading and abiding by SDS sheets, but when I see a skull and crossbones, I take it to mean that I should try not to be the skull and crossbones. Furthermore, if one does get hurt or damaged from not handling a product properly, asses are covered.
Without bias, I checked out the MSDS for SM-102 as I would for any chemical or new product I might be interested for using in assays or lab work. And I found the above.
Now, digging deeper into this, or rather staying in the mindset of purchasing this product and using it in the lab context, I clicked on the link to the ‘Kit, Mixture & Library Option(s)’ tab, and it took me to the neat little ‘build-your-own-LNP’ kit (Lipid Nanoparticle (LNP-102) Exploration Kit) of which SM-102 comprises the cationic lipid456 in this kit. (Just to remind everyone, the cationic lipid for the P-fizer p-f-roducts is ALC-0315.) The analogous cationic lipid in the Mod(e)rna LNPs is this SM-102.
Notice in the SDS for the LNP-102 kit materials that the Application of the substance / the mixture reads, quote:
This product is for research use - Not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic.
Now then. Are you sitting down?
Go to the UK government website listed here. Here’s a screenshot that made me do a double-take. The screenshot below refers to the Summary of Product Characteristics for ‘Spikevax’ (Mod(e)rna), updated 14 April 2022.
[With regard to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies], in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity studies were conducted with the novel lipid component SM-102 of the ‘vaccine’. Results suggests the genotoxicity potential to humans is very low. Carcinogenicity studies were not performed.
Oh. So it’s very low. In in vitro and in vivo models. And how many animals were tested? Ok. Hmm. And no carcinogenicity studies. They aren’t meant to cause cancer. Right.
To summarize, the Mod(e)rna injectable products utilize the LNPs which in turn utilize the cationic lipids SM-102 that are highly toxic according to the SDS. It also means that a lab-grade LNP product could be being used in humans.
Unless there is a commercial version of the SM-102 (non-lab-grade) on the go, then Houston, we have a problem.
And by the way, there’s this paper entitled: “The mRNA-LNP platform's lipid nanoparticle component used in preclinical vaccine studies is highly inflammatory”.7
For more information on this please check out Naomi Wolf’s interview with the Edward Dowd and this Substack write-up as well.
Schoenmaker, Linde et al. “mRNA-lipid nanoparticle COVID-19 vaccines: Structure and stability.” International journal of pharmaceutics vol. 601 (2021): 120586. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.120586.
Evers, Martijn J.W., Kulkarni, Jayesh A., van der Meel, Roy, Cullis, Pieter R., Vader, Pieter, Schiffelers, Raymond M., 2018. State-of-the-art design and rapid- mixing production techniques of lipid nanoparticles for nucleic acid delivery. Small Methods 2 (9), 1700375. https://doi.org/10.1002/smtd.v2.910.1002/ smtd.201700375.
It contains positively charged ionizable amine groups that interact with the anionic mRNA during particle formation and also facilitate membrane fusion during internalization.
Ndeupen, S., Qin, Z., Jacobsen, S., Bouteau, A., Estanbouli, H., & Igyártó, B. Z. (2021). The mRNA-LNP platform's lipid nanoparticle component used in preclinical vaccine studies is highly inflammatory. iScience, 24(12), 103479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.103479.
Why are they using the toxic SM-102 when their sister company Acuitas produced the LNPs that Pfizer used, that were (supposedly) tested and passed by their friends Charles River labs. Like, why add in a new toxic compound that is lab use only? Was it just to show that people really don't care and as long as the media tell you to shut up about it, you will?
Why are they using the toxic SM-102 when their sister company Acuitas produced the LNPs that Pfizer used, that were (supposedly) tested and passed by their friends Charles River labs. Like, why add in a new toxic compound that is lab use only? Was it just to show that people really don't care and as long as the media tell you to shut up about it, you will?
https://etana.substack.com/p/the-arc-of-a-fraud/comments
Dr. Naomi Wolf mentions SM-102 in this interview with Ex BlackRock manager Edward Dowd. Plenty of other interesting info from Pfizer’s trial data.